Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[Odin]

(01-26-2017, 03:09 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:15 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 08:08 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote: I must admit that watching the libtards go insane is a very nice bonus.  At the very least it will be a very entertaining four to eight years depending on how events unfold.

This is the attitude of a 12yo, not a grown adult.

Not really, because I consider that to be a worst case scenario which you should have picked up from the language I used.  I really do consider unwinding Obozo's idiocy, you probably think of it as a legacy, to be a very worthwhile goal.

If you were really a Libertarian, as opposed to merely an edgy contrarian who likes "sticking it to the libtards", you would be siding with us to defend Liberalism (in the broad sense) and Liberal Democracy against Trump and the Alt-Right.

The current incarnation of liberalism is a joke and a bad one at that.  Like the founders I am not a fan of unlimited democracy but rather a democratic republic with very limited powers delegated to the government.  The democrats tried to give us Hillary, possibly one of the most corrupt people in politics, or Bernie who calls himself a socialist but thought communism was a really neat idea back in the day.  I have less problems with Trump than with what passes for liberalism these days.

All I would have gotten is more of the same thing as sixteen years.  At that point I may as well support Trump.

Most of the stuff about Clinton is complete and utter bullshit, and Sanders is in his actual policy views (as opposed to his rhetoric) a standard social democrat, neither of them are outside the bounds of Liberal Democracy. Clinton would be considered moderately conservative in other Western countries, akin to Angela Merkel.

In my experience the vast majority of "Libertarians" are authoritarian Social Darwinists, and you are showing that clearly by seeing a Fascist demagogue as a "lesser evil".

[Odin]

(01-26-2017, 05:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:15 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 08:08 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote: I must admit that watching the libtards go insane is a very nice bonus.  At the very least it will be a very entertaining four to eight years depending on how events unfold.

This is the attitude of a 12yo, not a grown adult.

Not really, because I consider that to be a worst case scenario which you should have picked up from the language I used.  I really do consider unwinding Obozo's idiocy, you probably think of it as a legacy, to be a very worthwhile goal.

If you were really a Libertarian, as opposed to merely an edgy contrarian who likes "sticking it to the libtards", you would be siding with us to defend Liberalism (in the broad sense) and Liberal Democracy against Trump and the Alt-Right.

"Liberal Democracy", as in the UK Liberal Democrat  party, is a fusion of two largely incompatible platforms for political convenience.  The two platforms came from the former "Liberal" party, which was essentially what we call libertarian in the US, and the former Social Democrat party, which was a socialist party with an economic platform incompatible with and opposed to liberalism in the broad sense.

Supposed "liberals" - in the narrow US sense - espouse the socialism without the liberalism. There's every reason for actual libertarians to be happy with their defeat.

You are showing your ignorance here. Liberal democracy has nothing to do with any particular political party.

And calling American Liberalism "socialism" is a complete lie, no, wait, your side would prefer the term "alternative fact".

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 07:50 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:15 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:30 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 08:08 AM)Odin Wrote: This is the attitude of a 12yo, not a grown adult.

Not really, because I consider that to be a worst case scenario which you should have picked up from the language I used.  I really do consider unwinding Obozo's idiocy, you probably think of it as a legacy, to be a very worthwhile goal.

If you were really a Libertarian, as opposed to merely an edgy contrarian who likes "sticking it to the libtards", you would be siding with us to defend Liberalism (in the broad sense) and Liberal Democracy against Trump and the Alt-Right.

"Liberal Democracy", as in the UK Liberal Democrat  party, is a fusion of two largely incompatible platforms for political convenience.  The two platforms came from the former "Liberal" party, which was essentially what we call libertarian in the US, and the former Social Democrat party, which was a socialist party with an economic platform incompatible with and opposed to liberalism in the broad sense.

Supposed "liberals" - in the narrow US sense - espouse the socialism without the liberalism. There's every reason for actual libertarians to be happy with their defeat.

You are showing your ignorance here. Liberal democracy has nothing to do with any particular political party.

Capitalization matters.  If you say "Liberal Democracy", it implies association with the proper noun.  You should have used "liberal democracy" if that was what you meant.  Same with "Libertarian" and "libertarian", "Republican" and "republican", etc.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 04:31 PM)Galen Wrote: I suspect that Trump will get quite a few things through Congress which will be rather more lasting than executive orders.

The SCOTUS nomination will be the first real test.  BHO faced unrelenting opposition.  Trump may as well, if he's dumb enough to nominate a hard-right judge.

[Marypoza]

(01-26-2017, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 07:50 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:15 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 04:30 PM)Galen Wrote: Not really, because I consider that to be a worst case scenario which you should have picked up from the language I used.  I really do consider unwinding Obozo's idiocy, you probably think of it as a legacy, to be a very worthwhile goal.

If you were really a Libertarian, as opposed to merely an edgy contrarian who likes "sticking it to the libtards", you would be siding with us to defend Liberalism (in the broad sense) and Liberal Democracy against Trump and the Alt-Right.

"Liberal Democracy", as in the UK Liberal Democrat  party, is a fusion of two largely incompatible platforms for political convenience.  The two platforms came from the former "Liberal" party, which was essentially what we call libertarian in the US, and the former Social Democrat party, which was a socialist party with an economic platform incompatible with and opposed to liberalism in the broad sense.

Supposed "liberals" - in the narrow US sense - espouse the socialism without the liberalism. There's every reason for actual libertarians to be happy with their defeat.

You are showing your ignorance here. Liberal democracy has nothing to do with any particular political party.

Capitalization matters.  If you say "Liberal Democracy", it implies association with the proper noun.  You should have used "liberal democracy" if that was what you meant.  Same with "Libertarian" and "libertarian", "Republican" and "republican", etc.

-- exactly. I am a democrat, but not a Dem, who keep getting more & more un-democratic as the years go by. 

that's why l like Bernie. He's a democrat (dispite the l behind his last name) an old school Dem, he reminds me of the Dem pols from when l was growing up in the 60s & 70s

[SomeGuy]

I think referring to the old UK Liberal Party as "libertarian" in the American sense might be a bit of a stretch, at least without clarifying when you were talking about.  The Liberal Party started moving from Manchester style classic liberalism as early as the 1890s (Basically during the Great Power 2T).

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 12:55 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think referring to the old UK Liberal Party as "libertarian" in the American sense might be a bit of a stretch, at least without clarifying when you were talking about.  The Liberal Party started moving from Manchester style classic liberalism as early as the 1890s (Basically during the Great Power 2T).

I was actually thinking specifically about Nick Clegg, who was very much from the liberal/libertarian wing of the Liberal Democrats.  While he was very much the junior partner in the coalition with the Conservatives, he was able to move some of their policies a little toward the libertarian end of the spectrum.

For example, the Conservatives' natural inclination was to impose austerity - higher taxes, lower spending - Clegg was able to get them to use supply side policies - lower taxes, lower spending.  While a fully libertarian government would have cut taxes by 90% instead of by 10%, even a 10% cut was sufficient to ensure that the UK markedly outperformed the rest of the EU during his term.

Of course, the social democrat wing of the party hated the Conservatives and the coalition government, so Clegg didn't outlast the coalition.

[pbrower2a]

Another response to "Galen", who has gone elsewhere but deserves a taste of his own medicine:



The canonical five greatest Presidents include the fellows above and FDR. It's obviously impossible to put Obama in this category, but nobody else could be except for unusual circumstances. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ited-1.jpg

To make a long story short, rankings of President Obama have bounced between the first and second quartiles of the rankings. This is far from consistent. If you want consistency, then look at Donald Trump, who rates 44th, 42nd, 41st, and 43rd. Presidents rating lower than he include Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. Trump goes below Warren G. Harding, the most personally-reprobate of Presidents before him, and Herbert Hoover, who presided over the severest and most dangerous meltdown ever of the American (and ultimately) the world economy. 

(Really, I would give more fault to Coolidge for the speculative boom of the 1920's going awry, but that economic meltdown led to the rise of you-know-who).

I give much credit to President Obama for as daring measures as possible to put an end to an economic meltdown which after a year and a half was as severe as the one over which Hoover presided. 




The peaks relevant to the two nastiest meltdowns were in the autumns of 1929 and 2007. Maybe the difference is that the destructive bank runs portending the full nastiness of the Great Depression simply did not happen in 2009 and 2010 as they did in 1931 and 1932  due to FDIC insurance of bank balances since the 1930's. Don't forget that deposit insurance was in effect in 2007 and 2008, so that suggests that causes of the meltdown of 2007-2009 were at least as severe, such as major corruption in financial institutions. Obama did not do that alone, but he certainly made it possible. He deserves much credit for the strength, solidity, and duration of the recovery. Nothing is clownish about that.  

It's safe to assume that Osama bin Laden wasn't laughing about President Obama when Seal Team 6 raked him with machine gun fire. Obama arranged that after letting the Armed Forces use the intelligence that the CIA collected on the perpetrator of the most horrific act of terrorism by a non-state actor in history. This is Realpolitik at its best, something that a clown does not do. The world is no longer as safe a place for terrorism as it once was. 

Then we get to the personal life and Presidency: two divorces, marriage to someone with connections to a totalitarian secret police, the Czechoslovak Státní bezpečnost (StB). subservient to the Soviet Union, an incessant fornication until he was unable to do it, probably some nasty STD's (tertiary syphilis or gonorrhea could explain much of his cruelty and eccentric behavior, and it usually inflicts its damage on inveterate fornicators), connections to multiple syndicates of organized crime, a series of business failures including a casino with his name attached, people connected to him being indicted and convicted -- even his attorneys!) contempt for handicapped people, disrespect for democratic leaders when he could instead kiss up to despots, and religious bigotry.   

Whoops! That's Obama's successor! Obama's family life fits every mainstream standard of Christian behavior. He had a scandal-free administration. He has had but one wife who is 100% American. Maybe he couldn't get away with much and knew it. His administration had a predictable do-the-crime-and-do-the-time attitude. He made no obvious blunders of foreign policy. He may have co-opted much that has been the best of conservative ideals.  That's one way for a liberal on much to synthesize new expectations of a desirable norm.